request_changes

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description explains the action's purpose and that it returns a confirmation. But it lacks details on permissions, side effects, or whether changes are reversible, which are important for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (under 100 words) and well-structured with a usage note and bulleted Args. It could be slightly more front-loaded but is efficient overall.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations and low schema coverage, the description covers the tool's purpose, parameters, and return value. It lacks error handling details but provides sufficient context for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description's Args section is essential. It explains each parameter's meaning (e.g., 'pr_id: Pull request ID') and optionality, adding value beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Request changes on a pull request' and explains it is for indicating changes are needed before approval. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'approve_pull_request' and 'add_pull_request_comment'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description advises to always include a comment explaining what needs to change, providing clear usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly contrast when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'add_pull_request_comment'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.